Forgottendanfan said:
There are no advocacy groups for us, no specific support available, if anyone finds out about our situation we often get ridiculed for it, and possibly worst of all, if we dare complain about our predicament, we risk being called "entitled" and being told there's nobody to blame but ourselves. I truly believe that older male virgins get the honeysuckle end of the stick more than perhaps any other section of society, and there's nobody on our side to help us to defend ourselves. Society just laughs along.
I know what you mean. But that's the trouble - there's no specific support available because the reasons guys wind up like this are specific to each guy.
One thing that really frustrates me is that while sure, there are some women that aren't looking for a traditional macho man, there's still a lot more women that are. But what if you don't have the body, the interests, the culture, the life experiences, the personality or beliefs, the ways you think and feel about life, to be a macho man? It's the same with smooth talk and "witty banter". You need to have the kind of mind that's geared that way, you need to think and feel about the world that way, you need to have the kind of personality that thinks and reacts to life like that. If you don't, it's hard because it's not how you believe, how you think, how you perceive the world. The "right" things to say, just won't occur to you in the first place.
The reason guys in this situation get ridiculed is that it's assumed that the only reason a guy winds up in this situation is laziness, incompetence, weakness, inherent inferiority. Failure at being competitive in any area of life that other people value, because they think you'd rather play or rest than compete, don't want to think hard enough or make careful plans, take risk, endure stress and pain, or they think you're too weak to compete. It's the same mentality as what conservatives say about poverty - rather than look at all the systemic issues, or personal circumstances, they just say it's the fault of the individual, while praising themselves and the system that's been good to them. It's the survival of the fittest mentality, and they think you're not the fittest (but they think they are), so they don't think you deserve to survive. That, and they ridicule you because they don't respect you, because they think you don't have any power. Otherwise you'd have money, a girlfriend, etc. It's the same old, they think they can fresia with you - and it's their right to fresia with you - because they think you're weak, defective, inferior, and they feel safe in doing so cause they think you're not going to do anything about it, and would be too weak to do anything even if you did. At first they'll say it's because you're not working hard enough/competing enough/doing enough for society (why would you, when it rewards them instead of you?), but even if you did, then they'd just make it about you being inherently inferior instead. I still don't know how a person can be such an *******, that they have this mentality. You can't win with that kind of person, unless you show them up by having more money, doing something better than they can, dating someone hotter than they have, or physically beating them into submission. The frustrating thing is that most people don't seem to
want to believe it's anything else, or even consider the possibility no matter how you try to explain it. And all the while, you're bombarded by media telling you that if you can't attract a woman, you're a loser/not a "real man".
I think people like this story because the "laziness/weakness/inferiority" narrative reassures them that they are superior to someone else, and in doing so, makes them feel better about themselves, and reassures them about their own insecurities regarding their own abilities and status in the social hierarchy. "The system has been good TO ME, therefore the system is good, and anyone that the system hasn't worked for, sucks - not like ME. Because
I'm making it in the system, it means I'm a strong/smart/popular/charismatic/talented/special/superior/lucky/good/righteous person. It means I'm one of the 'better' people." Or, "I might have problems, but at least I'm better than
that guy." It's so smug, self-righteous, and cowardly, and has always made me sick, putting others down to feel better about oneself.
This is why they don't like it when you criticize the system, because you're criticizing the thing that gives them advantages, and you're criticizing their entire worldview. You're attempting to invalidate their belief that they're one of the "better" people. You're saying that they're not that smart, careful, hard-working, morally right, not special, but rather that they're just lucky - and that's not nearly as much of an ego boost. You're criticizing and threatening their ego, and that's why they treat it like an insult or blasphemy. They want to believe they are both hard-working and righteous, but also innately superior, the "chosen ones" at the same time. That's why I roll my eyes at their "hard work" crap, because it's like, OK, you're telling me I don't have anything because I don't work hard enough. But then you're also telling me that I don't have anything because you are just "better" than me, and my hard work doesn't really matter because I'm inherently inferior and I need to just accept that and resign myself to a shitty quality of life, because I just wasn't lucky enough. So which is it? It's both - whatever is more convenient to confirm their belief that they're "better", while framing themselves as "the good guy".
I really hate "entitled" too. It's so rude and condescending. It's just them being dismissive instead of considering your point of view, or any other point of view other than their own. "I don't want to hear anything that threatens my worldview that I'm more righteous and superior than you." It's just a euphemism for "I'm all right Jack." "I've got mine, fresia you." It's one thing when a right-wing person talks like this, that's to be expected. But the real irony is when leftists talk that way too. So much for enlightenment and empathy, so much for a better way, so much for the high road. Same old survival of the fittest, competition, hierarchical thinking where some people are just "better" than others. Same honeysuckle, different *******. If a so-called "better" person would just say, "I'm not better, just lucky", instead of strutting around like a self-congratulating lotto winner, I would respect them a whole lot more than the current zero, because they're just lottery winners - they just so happened to have the right body, mind, personality, interests, worldview, experiences, etc.
The other thing is worldview - what if you don't believe that life has to be survival of the fittest anymore? What if you don't believe that life is some kind of endless competition to create value for others so you can get status and resources? What if you think that life is just about liking what you like, following your interests and curiosity? What if you feel like life isn't about any one set thing, but whatever you want it to be about? Seems to be, that you get left out in the cold.
At the end of the day, I don't see people changing, I don't see the social game changing. All you can do is think harder about the kind of person you want to be and go all-in and hope you can be enough to be someone's "type". Look around you and see what works, what doesn't, and why. Think back about your own life and really understand why things turned out the way they did.
From an early age, I always felt that the social game was bullshit, made up by the lucky people, for the lucky people. Someone might be better than me
at something, but it doesn't mean they are "better" than me absolutely. I just wish more people would understand that not everyone sees things the same way, and that some things are a lot harder for other people to learn and understand than for others, so a little empathy and understanding could go a long way. And if that's too much for them, I don't see why they can't just be glad that they're not the ones having a hard time, and get on with their day.
Sorry about the diatribe, but this is something I've thought about a lot and felt very strongly about all my life. I guess I figured that if I spelled it out, both others and me could make more sense of it.
ardour said:
Low status men who fail at masculinity are generally considered the worst examples of humanity. Think about the kinds of support lonely women receive by default on any forum or mainstream subreddit - thousands of responses telling them how *awesome* and deserving of love they are, how they need not change a thing about themselves. Compared to the responses men get? Eh.
ardour said:
Men used to getting what they want end up doing what they please.
^all of this. Maybe not "low status men are considered the worst examples of humanity" but more like, "low status men are considered the least examples of humanity, or defective examples of humanity".
And you're totally right about the responses that lonely men and women get. The differences could hardly be more stark. Even in loneliness spaces, like various subreddits or here, you'll see many examples of this. It makes me shake my head each time I see it...whatever happened to "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself"? I guess not. It's best to just acknowledge the disparity and keep going instead of focusing on it, because all it will do for you is pour more fuel on the fire, and keep you stuck in an angry headspace.
Either way, +1